Naming His Grace

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

He, Jesus, is the King of the Jews, the King
of all peoples, the King above all kings, His kingdom above every kingdom. And
everyone shall bow to Him either as the redeemed or the terrified.

He, Jesus,
is the Second coming of God. Jesus the Christ, the only Messiah, will return.
He does and will reign righteously, justly and gloriously. No one else not even
the president of the United States can claim those titles.

When Wayne
Allyn Root stated that the Jews thought of President Trump as the “King of the
Jews” and the “Second coming of God,” Trump should have renounced that claim
not only for its ignorance and foolishness but because it is blasphemous. Only
the antichrists agree to such malarkey. Only the antichrists praise such
heresy. When Paul and Barnabas discovered that the people of Lystra thought the
two apostles were gods they tore their own cloths and rebuked the people giving
them a clear account of who God is. (Acts 14:8-18)

Speaking God’s
word Isaiah states:

Turn to Me and be saved all the ends
of the earth; for I am God and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, the
word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that
to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. They will say of
me ‘Only in the Lord are righteousness and strength.’ Isaiah 45:22-24a)

I have seen
several well-known orthodox Christians, those who adhere to the orthodox
doctrines of the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, stand against such arrogance,
I pray many more will. If you are
Presbyterian and have ever stood with the renewal groups in the PC (USA),
surely these words tweeted by President Trump will remind you of heresies you
have stood against. He needs to hear your faith.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Traci Smith, a Presbyterian (U.S.A.)
pastor, who several weeks ago complained that the Reverend Tim Keller should
not receive a theological award because of his beliefs about ordaining women
and members of the LGBTQ community, is now making some rather confusing
remarks about the atonement provided by our Lord Jesus Christ.

In an essay meant to help parents
and leaders dealing with children during Easter and Lent, Smith, insists that
the cross and suffering of Christ and what that means, put in what she calls a
simplistic manner, can frighten and offend children. She writes:

“When we reduce the crucifixion
story to a simple soundbite digestible for young children, we are actually
presenting complex atonement theories that will shape their theologies their
whole lives long. “Jesus paid the price for our sin.” (ransom) “Jesus saved us
because we couldn’t save ourselves.” (penal substitution). “Jesus conquered
death to set us free” (christus victor). … When we look closely at each of
these theories, however, we realize that it’s not quite so simple. Did God
really send God’s only son to be tortured and killed because God demands
payment for sin? That does not sound loving. Did God simply not have the
ability to rescue Jesus and spare him from all of that pain? If so, God must be
very weak.”

And toward the end of her posting,
Smith suggests that her readers “re-evaluate” their theology of the atonement.
She asks “Did God kill Jesus?” and answers, “I don’t think so.”

Well no, some of the Jewish leaders,
the Roman leaders in Jerusalem and all of us because of our sin killed Jesus. But,
yes, his death was necessary. Smith’s
question and answer is simplistic in the extreme.

In his little compact book, Christian Doctrine, J.S. Whale, after explaining the extreme suggestion
by some that if the idea of atonement entails Jesus’ death as a necessity than
God is a tyrant, writes:

“In all the classic soteriologies [atonement
theories] of the Church, he who is sacrificed is not a human being chosen out
from humanity to serve as a scapegoat. That would be the Nestorian heresy. On
the contrary it is the offended One himself, the Holy God who is of purer eyes
than to behold iniquity, who as the second ‘hypostasis’ or ‘person’ of the
Trinity assumes a human nature in order to be able to suffer for offending
sinners, and in their stead. According To Christian theology, the Being who
goes deliberately and freely to his death is not a human personality but the second
‘person’ of the Trinity, God incarnate in the clothing of human nature. … the
dogmatic formula of the Church is: two ‘natures’ in one ‘person’. The link
between these two natures is ‘hypostatic’ and the ‘person’ constituting the
link is divine.”

That is a lot of theology, both difficult
and beautiful—complex and biblical—as Christian theology should be.

But let us return to the children. No,
children should not be given graphic stories and harsh pictures of the crucifixion.
It isn’t necessary. But plain pictures, simple stories and the understanding
that Jesus died on the cross for our sins—and rose from the tomb to fill our
lives with joy and hope. We shouldn't be afraid of the words; Jesus died for sinners. Jesus saves. That is blessed hope for children.

I have told this story before—I will
tell it again. When my children were little I had a Good News Club in my home.
We told Bible stories the old fashioned way with felt and flannel cutouts. Many
of the children in my neighborhood knew nothing about Jesus. At Easter I told
them the story of Jesus and his death on the cross. One little boy who had
never heard this story before was so very sad when I told about Jesus' death.
But then I told about Jesus coming alive, and he got so excited, so happy. Children
need this story and they need to know in simple terms that Jesus loved them so
much that he died for them.

The good news is deep—deep enough
that scholar and student can bathe in its deep luxurious riches. No simplifying the
work of the Trinity, the death of the Son, the gracious sacrifice given and the
glorious resurrection. Adults need to dig deep.

But the good news is simple too.
Laid out for the child and the special learner who struggles to understand. It
is there as gift. Jesus lived, Jesus died, Jesus lives. He loves and forgives
sins. He suffered because he loves. Children all over the world are suffering
and dying because they love Jesus. Why should we withhold his truth?

Monday, April 3, 2017

This posting covers the last lesson in Presbyterian Women’s Horizons Bible Study, Who is Jesus? What a Difference a LensMakes. Author, Judy Yates Siker, could have helped the reader of the whole Bible
Study by placing this lesson, “According to Contemporary Cultural
Interpretations,” or at least its underlying theme about biblical
interpretation, as a part of the introduction. Looking back over the nine
lessons one sees the real cheat—there is, according to Siker, no absolute
answer to the question about Jesus—instead there is personal opinion.

I have already quoted twice, in other parts of my continuing
review, from this lesson. Siker’s words are the mainstay of all nine lessons
whether they be orthodox or heterodox.She writes:

“As we become more and more conversant with our sacred text, we
begin to understand that to seek the meaning of a text is not as useful as
seeking what New Testament Scholar Brian Blount calls ‘meaning potential.’ Some
who hear this term may fear that it is watering down the biblical text,
allowing it to mean whatever the reader wants it to mean. After all it is much
more comforting to think that if we try hard enough or if we study enough, we
can know the one true meaning of the text. I would like us to consider,
however, that the approach of ‘meaning potential’ is a more honest reading of
the sacred text. This way of approaching our Bible acknowledges the reality
that every reader is an interpreter standing within his or her own community.
Each interpretation is a conversation between the biblical writing and the biblical
reader, most often mediated by centuries of tradition and immediate experiences
and situations of the reader. Along the way, we encounter many potential
readings of the text, some more compelling than others. There is no such thing
as a completely objective reading of a text.”

Siker, using a radical feminist and liberation theologian,
Leticia Guardiola-Sáenz, to exegete Matthew 15:21-28, attempts to explain how
‘meaning potential’ works. The effect is a Jesus who errs since he seemingly
excludes the ‘other’ and needs to be “humanized” by the other.

The story in the text is about Jesus’ response to a Canaanite
woman whose daughter is demon possessed. The story is problematic because at
first Jesus apparently refuses to help stating that “It is not fair to take the
children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” The woman’s response, “…even the
dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” is seen by most
progressive theologians as a wise means of getting Jesus to see the other as equal
to himself and others, also encouraging him to change.

Siker writes of Guardiola-Saenz’s view of the story as a
liberation story. Her take, to say the least, is horrific:

“Reading the story this way, Jesus represents the powerful
ones who demand that she stay in her place, as it were. This kind of power play
is dehumanizing, even as we are surprised to see Jesus treating the Canaanite
woman as less than a full human being. A culturally sensitive reading suggests
that, rather than succumb to being dehumanized yet again the Canaanite woman
stands firmly in her place and leaves Jesus speechless. The woman is able to
awaken Jesus to the dehumanization that she has experienced, and the result is
that she humanizes Jesus.”

I want to deal first with the story and then look deeper into
the problems connected to Siker’s statement about biblical interpretation.

This particular story about the Canaanite woman is not a good
story to come to the text with the question, “who is Jesus?” That is because
who Jesus is informs this story. The text does raise questions. Why did Jesus
tell the woman “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the
dogs”? (NASV) And why did Jesus in the former part of the story tell the disciples,
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

This latter question is simply addressing the scope of Jesus’
earthly ministry although it did entail a few gentiles. R. T. France answers
the question in his Tyndale commentary
on Matthew, covering both Matthew
10:5-6, Jesus’ instructions to his disciples, and 15:24, “To call Israel to
repentance was the primary focus of Jesus’ ministry; the call was urgent and
demanded total concentration (cf.
10:23). They were lost sheep, a
common Old Testament metaphor (Je. 50:6; Ezk. 34:1-16; cf. Is. 53:6. …”[1]

The former question about Jesus’ reply to the Canaanite woman
fits well into Jesus ministry to the ‘lost sheep of Israel.’ As John Calvin
points out in his commentary, the “bread” that Jesus speaks of is not the good
gifts that are given to all of humanity (God’s general grace) but the gifts of
the covenant God made to Israel.[2]
(Even Paul states that the gifts are first offered to the Jewish people and
then to the gentile. Romans 2:9-11)

And while biblical scholar Richard Bauckham posits the idea
that the woman had changed Jesus’ mind with her perseverance,[3]
and biblical scholar, R. T. France believes that Jesus’ seemingly harsh words
were said with a twinkle in his eyes, neither of them see Jesus as someone who
views the outsider as ‘other.’ For them he does not represent the powerful. Nor
do they see him as someone who needs to be humanized.

In the text, the Canaanite woman sees Jesus in a special way.
She addresses him as ‘Son of David,’ a reference to his Jewish messiahship, and
she worships him. She believes that he can do what she is asking of him; in
humility she perseveres. All reasons for granting her request, and reasons for granting
Jewish supplicants as well. It is who Jesus is that informs the text. He is son
of David, the messiah king of Israel, the healer and the granter of covenant
gifts. May his crumbs, marvelous crumbs, fall to all of us.

If there is a seeming problem in the text, the reader should
apply other scripture to the text. Who is Jesus in all of scripture, not just
in one particular passage? Is the whole passage being used to gain an understanding?
For example in this story of the Canaanite woman, neither Siker nor the author
she is using includes the titles that the woman uses to address Jesus. Nor do
they comment on the fact that she worships Jesus and believes he is able to
answer her request. They begin with their own feelings about being excluded and
interpret from that position—they don’t ask what is God saying to me through
this text, but how does my perspective or experience inform this text, or even
how do other people’s perspective experience inform the text.

Scripture informs scripture and a commonsense reading of the
text is important. Above all Scripture is God’s story not ours. The Holy Spirit
is the giver and interpreter of the word. (2 Peter 1:20; 2 Timothy 3:16) Jesus
cannot be both the compassionate savior and at the same time representative of
the powerful oppressor. Siker rather than insisting that some interpretations
are simply wrong, allows Jesus to be maligned—like the evil persecutors of the
17th century Christians of Japan, Siker and Guardiola-Sáenz might as
well ask Presbyterian women to step on the face of Christ.[4]

“And the Word became
flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten
from the Father, full of grace and truth.

…

No one
has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the
Father, he has proclaimed him.” (John 1:14, 18)

Thursday, March 23, 2017

I’ve been sitting here attempting to write, afraid of my own
anger which I must put aside. I have listened to a song I particularly like.
Over and over I have listened.

Span of stars over head as we walk this route/ While this darkness remains I will bear your load/ And together we will tend to the seeds we've sown/ As we walk along that road to that city/

Well my eyes can't see what is waiting there/ And my mind can't conceive all that he has prepared/ There the blind will see the Son/ what was old will be young/ And the lame, the lame will run, all over the city/

I don’t
belong to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) anymore, I know, but I have many
dear friends that do—friends that, like Rev. Tim Keller, do not
believe in the ordination of those who practice biblical sexual sin, be it fornication, adultery or homosexuality. I suppose,
now, like Keller, they are not qualified to win theological awards such as the annual Kuyper Prize for
Excellence in Reformed Theology and Public Witness given by Princeton
Theological Seminary. Or perhaps they too could have it offered and then taken
away because too many progressives protest.

Keller is still speaking at the seminary and his subject is
Church Mission. The Religion News Service quoted PT’s president, Rev. Craig
Barnes, stating that “Reverend Keller will be lecturing on Lesslie Newbigin and
the mission of the church – not on ordination.” He is still ministering.

I have been troubled by this for several days after seeing a
link placed on a Facebook site I belong to, Happy to be a Presbyterian. The
link was
a petition produced by Princeton’s Center for Theology, The Women and
Gender Advisory Council, Women’s Center and BGLASS which is Bisexual, Gay,
Lesbian, and Straight Supporters. Bruce Gillette posted the link with these words, “My father Jerry
Gillette (Class of 1953), my wife Carolyn Winfrey Gillette (Class of 1985) and
I (MDiv Class of 1984, ThM Class of 1985) have all signed this petition. Please
encourage others to join us, especially the Princeton Theological Seminary
graduates. Thank You.” Of course this is good American political action but hardly
conducive to care for the orthodox still in the PC (U.S.A.).

But
it was very troubling to see another on the thread refer to Keller’s theology
as idolatrous and in another thread where it was announced that the award had
been rescinded, A
Christianity Today article, a person wrote, “Because he's a homophobic and
misogynistic schismatic who doesn't deserve to be honored by any PCUSA body.”
That comment was liked by eight people including one of the administrators of
the Facebook site.

This
kind of hatefulness is a gathered storm in the PC (U.S.A.) and other mainline denominations.

Why
is it that many of us who are orthodox and believe that women can biblically be
ordained are appalled by Princeton’s action of taking away the award that was
to be given to Keller? Keller loves the Lord Jesus Christ. He has labored
faithfully a long time in a great city, New York City, which desperately needs
the gospel of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. He does not hate the LGBTQ
community but longs for them to experience the transformation that Jesus bought
with his cross. He cares about both women and men. He loves people. He has
taught many of us with his sermons and books. His and our agenda is simply leading
people to the Lord Jesus Christ.

And
that is what the enemy of our Lord does not want.

It is he, Satan, that seeks
to hurt or ruin those who are in Christ. We are called to love and care for brothers
and sisters and to love those who are enemies of the gospel.

The forming and maintaining of sheep

"None but the Virture understood, in its soaring comprehension, the safety in which the sheep still lived, or from what yet deeper distance of spirit was to arise the Innocence which everlastingly formed and maintained them." The Place of the Lion

Followers

About Me

Writer, Lover of books, interested in the history of intellectual and religious ideas, tend with love gardens, grandchildren and great grandchildren. My husband, Brad, is a retired Steinway Piano tuner. We live in a hundred year old house that always needs repairs.